Not directly responsive to your post, but . . .

Seems to me that state law variations on marriage are insignificant compared to the big prize which is - federal recognition of same sex marriage for all purposes. Until same sex couples can enjoy equal protection under the Internal Revenue Code, Social Security Act and ERISA, they will never achieve true equality.

I know that "every journey begins with a single step" and "you have to walk before you can run" etc. etc. etc., but rather than using this historic moment to tinker with state laws I would like to see a push on the national level. I know this may be a pipe dream with so many "blue dogs" participating in the current Dem. coalition, but why not try for the big prize?

Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others believe homosexuality is wrong.

Many of them also believed Biblical/Koranic passages endorsing slavery were right...

A religious statement is, by definition, a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith, and such things are never wrong; they just are.

In other words, there's no there there - there's no evidence to support a religious prejudice. It is because I say it is. Or my book does. Or I think my book does. Or my priest tells me it does...

And newsflash - sometimes (often?), baseless, evidence free, holy book referenced statements are actually wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

All citizens deserve the same legal rights regardless of what others think of them.

Yes - that's in our American constitution. It was in Oregon's and California's constitutions once, too. And I want it back from you prejudiced, blinkered, slow-thinking, mean-spirited Catholics, Mormons, and Baptists. Pronto.

(and, at this point, for couples only; polygamy is a critter I ain’t even gonna touch).

And why not touch it? The subject won’t go away, particularly once gay marriage is made legal. The two topics are invariably linked together, you can’t discuss one without the other.

The disdain shown toward multiple partner marriages is no less reprehensible and bigoted than that shown to same sex marriage. To advocate “marriage for all” without recognizing a form of marriage that has been practiced throughout history and in many parts of the world today destroys any argument that gay marriage support is based in fairness and justice.

Get the state out of marriage and let any combination of adults form civil unions as they see fit.

Steve M., when I read the first paragraph of your post I thought you were talking about the Arlington Club. I was almost ready to make a motion at lunch today that we have the sergeant-at-arms come over and teach you some respect. But I see we are talking about religion, so never mind.

The theology isn't coherent; I don't know that you can take direct social values from the theology, given that it is so internally contradictory.

This is really odd timing, for me personally. After 20 years of not working with the Church- I was paid during college to translate various manuscripts- I was persuaded to do a one month examination of the theology of Josef Ratzinger and Benedict the XVI, as if they were two people. I did this in '78 when JP II claimed to be a Thomistic phenomonenologist, which claim was as bogus as it sounds on the face of it. He was just an old Thomist. Read Aristotelean for Thomist. Why does the Church often seem so far out of touch? Aristotle isn't exactly best practices anymore. Thanks for the post topic!

So, back to the good Josef Cardinale Ratzinger. I had avoided studying him because of his choice of name. Benedict the XV did about everything progressive that has been done by the Papacy in the last 450 years. I didn't want to see him approriate the mantle to continue some backward agenda. I'll skip the details of the exigesis, but, bottom line, I was thoroughly shocked. Instead of a backward apologist, the only apologies I found were for Hans Kung and the the right of Jews to say "rubbish" to the whole Jesus story. His analysis is the first I've read in 1000 years, by a Pope, that understands the psycho-social dimension to Anselm's ontological argument.

Anselm has a famous argument/proof for the existence of God. It sounds odd to our ears, because he starts assuming that you believe in God. It's more like Immanuel Kant's "rational faith", where the method is faith, i.e. the non-falsifiability principle, but the faith makes rational sense. This, BTW, is why there can never be a conflict between religion and science, unless the scientists don't know what they're doing. The essence of the scientific method is falsifiability. String theory is often labeled as a non-scientific theory because it does not establish a criterion for falsifiability. It doesn't say, "if you show x, we will accept the null hypothesis to y". That is the essence of faith, non-falsifiability. "You cannot come up with a state of affairs that would cause me to doubt". Assumptions, at the start, which are diametrically opposed, by definition. Anyone that argues about an overlap is trying to push one into the others' domain where it has no business being.

Point is, Pope Benedict XVI understands all this. He doesn't look at the Old and New Testaments as a person that assumes, by faith, that you have to accept all the teleology around Jesus as the Christ, or in Hebrew, the Messiah, both terms which mean "annointed". (Actually the annointing was probably with cannabis infused oil, but that's another discussion!). He looks at it as a construct system and says that if you go bottom up instead of working backwards from what "has to be the case", there is no necessity in seeing Jesus as the Messiah and such persons are justified in waiting on another, today. He has made similar statements with regard to Buddhism, enough to please the Prince of Wales. In the 22nd century all church leaders will secretly be Buddhists, perhaps.

So, after reading all his interesting thoughts, I was curious how it would translate into his Bulls. He seemed to be avoiding issues that would directly demonstrate the difference in approach. I honestly went to bed a week ago thinking, "why can't he come clean on this 'the only function of sex is procreation' BS, and really do some good?" His encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, looked to have taken the Franciscan intellectual side against the Thomists, after 500 years. Thomas Aquinas (reminds one very much of Newt Gingrich) and John Duns Scotus (reminds one very much of a super-genious Howard Dean) used to debate, "if man had not sinned, would Christ have come"? Thomas won the day and we have Protest theology as a result, that "Jesus came to save mankind from it's wretched condition by his blood sacrifice on the cross". The Franciscans always insisted that incarnation was necessarily de-emphasized by that point of view, and that incarnation was the important act, not the political reality of getting the death penalty for insurrection against the Romans, which was a matter of course thing. They maintained that if man had not sinned Christ certainly would have come, as the first act of a loving God that wished to share his life with his creation. (Francis invented the xmas nativity scene in Greccio, 1223, to make the point). Benedict the XVI takes this stance in Deus Caritas Est.

A year ago the Bull Spe Salvi was promulgated. BTW, Bull and encyclical are synonyms. It isn't a cut, though one has to smile when saying it. Anyway, Spe Salvi is an obvious reference to Gaudium et Spes, a seminal Vatican II document. Gaudium et Spes basically said, among a lot of other things, that you weren't going to hell if you were a devout, non-catholic. It ended re-baptism for converts and other such stuff. My fist read was to think that Spe Salvi is the anti-Gaudium et Spes. I noticed today that the theologian Rorate Caeli had a verbatim impression. So, the trend was for greated orthodoxy internally, yet a more progressive stance with non-catholics.

It is against this personal, theological backdrop that you have to read the Vatican's "consideration" letter, cited in the post topic. This is not a statement by Benedict XVI. He has not addressed the issue. The letter cited was a culling of the traditional, very, very Thomistic position on marriage. It was necessary because Benedict has been silent on the point. I looked through recent talks to see if there might be a hint to his thinking, one way or the other, and was struck that he'd much rather be talking about Hindu Diwali, at the moment! Migrants, refugees...very practical and social concerns. Every indication from his published works as Cardinal and encyclicals as Pope indicate that he would never think in Thomistic terms. He might affirm the doctrine, but I can assure you that it won't take the terms "the only end of sex is procreation". He's as likely to rescind Benedict XV's pardon of Galileo.

Given that his encyclicals have not been promulgated, ex cathedra, that the current, historic position is not likely to be the new pontiff's, and, most important, that this is a question of Roman Law, where practice preceeds change and creates the basis for legislation, American Catholics have every right to support same sex unions and can legitimately claim that their beliefs are not at odds with their religion. For 500 years, their religion has been at odds with reason. Devotion does not require blindly following those errors in doctrine. The traditionalists can't have it both ways. If you say that Benedict the XVI is a heretic, you have to throw out all of Vatican II, which some would do. That is absurd, though, Vatican II is the Church today. It's why Albino Luciano and Karol Wojtyła both took the name John Paul, to show a continuity with John XXIII and Paul VI, the authors of Vatican II. It's taken 40 years, but when Benedict XVI puts out something like "Humanae Vitae Novae", maybe on the 50th anniversary, which would be 4 years or so, the process of separating what have become the conjoined twins of Catholic theology and Thomism will finally be complete. As population is a serious environmental issue, this can't wait. Get to writin' lad... Do Benedict XV proud!

Perhaps, consideration is do the Dutch approach once again. The 2/5 that are religious believe in using their faith values as personal values and teach them to their children. All agree, though, that science is used to solved social-political questions. The opposite position is a holdover in US politics from colonial days. The position wasn't an acceptable model in Britain, already then, so those people ended up here. We always portray them as victims of religious persecution, but in fact they were the victims of the kind of persecution that every human society engages in when the target are right, bloody nuisances! We still have people saying they won't consider the science/research because it's morally wrong. In the rest of the world that's a "Fine. Don't do it". Only in America do they have to try and change the majority, on pain of eternal damnation. Sure, Al-Quaeda are trying that in Pakistan, but they aren't legitimized. Ostracizing isn't a preference of progressive, so evangelicals bleat on and take us all down to hell with themselves. Gee, I wonder why this lot were refugees? They want to go back to the country the Pilgrims knew? Fine. Go to Pakistan's tribal areas and you can relive it all. Not as fun with well armed natives, is it? They've never learned tolerance; don't even respect it. They should love the Taliban. Humor is already there. Comedian Andy Hamilton has a very funny routine about an Evangelical and Muslim suicide-bomber being assigned the same cell in hell as eternal punishment. It doesn't work. Both are too self-righteous to believe they could be there. Ironically, for the post, the last thing the evangelical could remember was telling a gay biker that he was going to Hell. The terrorist remembered a trainee asking, "what does this button do". I like the equivalence. Those evangelicals that show up at gay funerals of HIV/Aids patients are engaging in terror tactics. Once you know that they really, really want something, you don't have to go through all the analysis to know it's not good for the country!

I must admit, this is the best presentation of the issue I have read. Most site take a polarized view and see no middle ground.

I agree with your assessment on the dangers in our current environment coming back to whack the Church. By their own design, they have opened the door for their own destruction.

Also, let's not forget the Catholics. Zero moral authority, but trying to stay relevant. They are running from their past (30 years of raping children) and accusing Gays as the ones responsible. There is a serious witch hunt going on right now in the Catholic Church. Google it -- it's scary.

Good job.

T.A.,

A question: Why do you think a majority of people in the U.S. support a ban on gay marriage? All you have to do is look at the percentage of victory in each state during the 2006 election. The average was more than 60%...and as high as 80%.

So does that mean most of American's are bigoted and judgmental?

Steven,

So everyone should think like you?

So does that mean most of American's are bigoted and judgmental?

On this particular issue, that at least explains some of it. Uninformed explains some more. Don't have many gay friends/coworkers to relate to explains even more.

California's Prop 8 is a particularly horrifying example, because voters voted explicitly to remove a right which was already in existence, rather than voting to prevent the recognition of a right which was currently denied.

PS... There's no apostrophe in "Americans".

Regarding the supposed link between gay marriage and polygamy:

Expanding marriage to include same-gender couples (and mixed-race couples, and mixed-religious couples, for that matter), does NOT alter the basic underlying structure of marriage itself: Laws, licenses, contracts, wills, divorce proceedings, custody proceedings -- all of these things stay exactly the same, with only a word or two changed. (In California, the forms were changed from "Husband and Wife" to "Spouse and Spouse".)

Group marriage, on the other hand, requires a complete rewrite of all laws and contracts, and there is no obvious path to follow when rewriting those laws. It would require intense and careful involvement of the legislature, the courts, and societal norms, to come up with a legal structure for group marriage.

In a polygamous relationship, who makes the health care decisions? Who gets custody of children? Who does a house or business go to when a partner dies? Is the household a democracy? Are the personal finances a corporation with each spouse being a shareholder? What if 5 partners want to leave each other, and 2 of them want to care for children but 3 do not?

There are answers to all those questions, I'm sure, but they are not answers which can be divined from existing marriage laws. The underlying structure is different.

In a conventional 2-person marriage, in the absence of things like prenuptial agreements, all of these questions can be answered automatically -- in the absence of one spouse, the other gets everything. I hate to use the word "easy" in the context of marriage, but compared to a group marriage, answering these questions in a 2-person marriage is easy.

Just to be clear:

In the above argument I am sidestepping any moral debate as to whether group marriage should be allowed or is desirable. I'm just saying that structurally, it's a whole new animal compared to 2-person marriage. It is impossible for the existence of 2-person gay marriages to lead suddenly and irrevocably to polygamy. There is no slippery slope between A and B.

Regarding religious belief and proscriptions:

Churches are well within their rights to proscribe behaviors, turn their noses up at certain relationships, bar people form religious marriages, and bar people from attending their facilities or from being members in their organization. Individual members of those churches have every right to vote their conscience on various issues.

But once churches, in an organized manner, seek to become political actors for the express purpose of inhibiting the rights of non-members, which is what happened with Prop 8 and other anti-gay measures, they are no longer immune to political action. Those who have lost their rights also have a right to condemn those churches, to protest, to investigate political activities, and to strategize how to turn the tables.

My two comments after the 11:15:04AM comment appear to have been removed or held back... can a moderator please check into this for me? Thanks much.

T.A.,

I have several black friends who despise the correlation between gay rights and civil rights. That's not an argument I will ever agree with.

Herein lies the problem. You, like Steve, believe people should think and feel the way you do about this issue. You are being judgmental by assuming that your position is right, and that other are wrong. I respect your position, but I don't agree with it. There are other people who believe differently - and not because they are judgmental. They simply believe that God created a certain order in life for the spiritual and physical health and well-being of the human race. They also believe that children are best raised, and more likely to succeed in life, both emotionally and physically, when raised by a mother and a father. You don't have to agree with that, but that's how many people feel.

"But in the end, what is right - is right."

Yes, but that's according to your viewpoint. Again, when people have diverging ethical/moral values, there will always be a collision as to the outcome an a variety of issues.

Personally, I believe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the state. Even for Christians, if they believe their marriage is sanctified by God, why do they need the state to solidify it?

I also believe churches should not have a non-profit status, nor should married couples be given special tax benefits. While I don't agree with gay marriage, I do think tax benefits should be extended to anyone raising kids, regardless of their marital status. I think the state should get out of marriage altogether; therefore, negating the purpose of having a law defining what it is. (I know many conservative Christians would lambaste me for this position, but that's what I think.)

Instead of judging people for their lifestyles and always having a condeming attitude, more Christians should actually follow the two greatest commandments: Love God and love others. While I hold to a certain set of spiritual beliefs (and morals/ethics), I don't ever try to "preach" or "convince" others to believe the way I do. If they ask, I share why I believe what I believe, and how it's changed my life for the better. I try to lead by example, and let my actions speaker louder than words. For me, it's not about trying to "save" anyone. It's about loving others, regardless of our differences. If my love for others somehow shows them who I believe God to be, then great. But that's not the point of my journey.

In the end, if gay marriage becomes law, I won't be concerned with it, nor fight against it. My hope is not in this world.

Bob,

Thanks for the correction about the inadvertent apostrophe in Americans.

Broken down to its most fundamental underpinnings religion is in many ways a means of controlling people to some end. For most of history this has been positive I would think. Moses kept the Jews together and a coherent group by showing a divine guidance. Religion has given order, substance and purpose in a universe so vast that it could otherwise crush our hopes and dreams. Our urge that favors religion enabled the human race to progress and find dominance by helping us find common cause. Unfortunately, most religion has a set of principals that are unique to the society, nee tribe, within which it originates. As our tribes grew larger and rubbed up against one another in the wilderness the limitations of faith's absolute nature has come into focus.

To navigate the rules of the different faiths requires a priestly class; clergy, reverends and ministers etc. Enter into a faith based argument with a member of the faithful and the dice are loaded against you. This is why the faithful have made the claim repeatedly that this is a Christian Nation founded on Christian values. Understandably, they seek to load the dice in favor of a faith based argument in order that there tribe might gain supremacy. This is neither calculated or evil it is simply a logical progression of their faith.

The Constitution is clear on this as Mr. Barnhart alludes to in this eloquent piece. It is clear though that an Ecumenical discussion is, and has continually been seen by our founders as well as others, to be impossible when the stakes are high. The priestly class will always retreat into rules that support their claims and that they are only allowed to interpret. Jefferson describes the need for "the wall between church and state," established in the first amendment, in his letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists, to protect differing perspectives from this stifling urge toward establishment of a state sponsored church.

The purpose of the Constitution is to eliminate the primacy of faith being the last word in public policy debates. Ironically, the Baptists were active advocates of this perspective when they were being persecuted by Episcopalians. Secular rule makes peace between these tribes and defends minority faiths if no faith based perspective is given advantage. One could say that lawyers are the priests of the secular American faith. Our American faith is based on reason over arguments from religious tradition. The President our Pontifex Rex.

We need to reframe our argument in ways that makes testimonies of faith, other than our secular American, moot. Our Constitution must become our Bible not be conflated with it. We need to make it just as futile for a Minister to argue policy with a Lawyer as it would be for a Lawyer to argue Papal encyclicals with a Cardinal at the Vatican. We need to make the former to seem as absurd as the latter to ensure that our country progresses. Eventually religion catches up to secular society, look at poor Galileo, our LBGT friend's dreams of equality should not meet the same fate.

"Posted by: Jack Roberts | Dec 2, 2008 9:01:58 AM

If the Oregon legislature refers a repeal of Measure 36 to the voters, then surely the prayers of many Republicans will have been answered."

Jack, as has been pointed out elsewhere, if that were to take place it would mean that the prayers of many open minded people in rural areas across the country had not been answered. It took awhile for interracial marriage to be accepted (just watch Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and ponder what has happened in the last 40 years) and no matter what the result of any election, it will take some time for gay marriage to be accepted.

I still think there should be a way to make sure there are legal rights for same sex couples without being "in your face" towards those who believe in marriage as a sacrament.

Some churches refuse to marry any couple which has not graduated from their preparation for marriage class. A matter of church decision, not law. Surely there is a way to provide legal rights and non-discrimination without those "in your face" battles over ballot measures.

BTW, don't make the mistake of equating votes on gay marriage with partisanship. I have a relative who belonged to a church in 2004 (before relocating) which had done the funeral for a gay couple who died in a hate crime. This relative voted for Bush in 2004 and against Measure 36.

Much as the temptation is to group voters into teams or blocs, many Oregonians reserve the right to vote as individuals!

I submit that had the Multnomah County Commission not decided to perform gay marriages, M36 would never have happened.

This is incorrect.

Prior to Multnomah County's actions, four different anti-gay-marriage initiatives were already proposed.

In fact, during the recording of a TV interview of me and my partner (we had recently participated in the marriages in San Francisco in February of 2004), a phone call came in to the reporter from the original chief petitioner.

There was a movement afoot with a familiar cast of characters, well before Multnomah County was on the radar.

"Oregonians don't like to be asked to re-vote on something they've already decided--at least not so soon after doing it."

Just ask those opposed to Oregon's Death with Dignity measure whether it got more votes the first time around or when those opponents put it on the ballot for a revote.

Succinctly put, Nick!

I have to agree with Carla on this one. This thing is going to be a super-duper-duper marathon. It's going to happen but it's going to come 1 piece at a time. Right now the concentration has to be on eliminating hetersexism from the public perception of the LGBT community. The next step I would like to see the legislature take is to re-vamp the full faith clause to recognize same sex unions from other states. That's something that could be done fairly soon and I think not have the backlash problem. (It's gonna make waves but I don't think it will be THE ISSUE in the next election)

More about early anti-gay-marriage initiatives in Oregon...

I have found an archived blog post from Kelly Boggs, one of the proponents of withholding rights from same-sex couples.

Mr. Boggs and others filed multiple initiatives on February 19th, 2004.

Multnomah County did not announce or start issuing licenses until March.

Mr. Boggs clearly states he was filing his initiative in response to Massachusetts. Please note that Massachusetts still recognizes the rights of same-sex couples, and that the legal authority of the state supreme court had already been applied... it wasn't any kind of "rogue action" or "civil disobedience" as has been argued regarding San Francisco and Multnomah County.

The (recent) historical record is absolutely clear: Anti-gay-marriage campaigns were coming to Oregon regardless of what Multnomah County later did.

The abolition of slavery movment, the suffrage movment, & the anti-segrgation movment (The REV mlk)..

All were religiously based...Just because something is also theologically based dosent mean it can be also good civil law (think thou shalt not steal)

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

But I don't want to see rights further undermined by shoving the electorate around when they're not ready.

[sarcasm mode on] By all means let's continue to shy away from this fight and only let the right-wing define the ballot agenda. That's worked oh-so-well over the past 20+ years. Never waste effort being proactive when you can be reactive.[sarcasm mode off]

It’s really telling - those so (suddenly) concerned with "marriage"...

In this great glorious future of marriage equality that we will some day eventually reach...

May I ask a question... What’s the illegitimacy rate?

I’m afraid your talking to someone who has tried for years to get family breakdown on the political radar and has been called archaic and patriarchal.

Se I'm from Detroit and the broken family simply won’t be able to repair itself under a genderless rubric with no necessary connection to childbearing.

Maybe in liberal Oregon all is peachy with the family. But when did the left start caring about "marriage" in any form other than a vehicle for "inclusion" for gays???

Se I'm from Detroit and the broken family simply won’t be able to repair itself under a genderless rubric with no necessary connection to childbearing.

I know people from Detroit who are smart and are able to read studies and find things out using search engines. Maybe I can introduce you to some of them.

Study after study has shown that same-gender relationships are in the same statistical range as opposite-gender relationships when it comes to issues of divorce, relationship longevity, and the development and well-being of children raised in those relationships.

Your comments may have been labelled by some as being "archaic" and "patriarchal", but really they seem simply to be ignorant of well-established facts. Whether those comments are willfully ignorant, is left up to you to determine by your future actions.

Pardon me if this sounds personal, but it is. It is my marriage and my family that anti-gay activists are toying with.

Bob R.

"Study after study has shown that same-gender relationships are in the same statistical range as opposite-gender relationships when it comes to issues of divorce, relationship longevity, and the development and well-being of children raised in those relationships."

"but really they seem simply to be ignorant of well-established facts."

I do follow the social science literature. And I believe thou dost protest too much.

The good science requirement -says at this point that there really is not enough solid data on same-sex families to make an adequate scientific consensus. This point is conceded by gay advocates as well as social science in general. Sure you could point to studies & I could point to studies…. But the field itself admits that not enough solid evidence exists to make a sound scientific judgment at this time.

There is however solid scientific consensus about the intact natural married family as compared to every other adequately studied family form (as stated above same-sex marriages –jury still out) including step families, adopted families, divorced families, single parent families, and so forth.

However The question is not what individual family is “better” than another… rather the question is…What impact does same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage as a whole.

Like the quote I listed, there is ample reason to fear that traditional marriage won’t thrive under an androgynous marriage definition with no necessary link to childbearing.

The people that voted in favor of both M36 and Prop 8 can be seen as a "picture in time" of a set of beliefs. I am sorry to those that believe that this is the end all be all of the issue. It is not. The issue of gay marriage will be debated, argued and fought over at the ballot box, in the media and in the streets until one day we will have the right of every other tax paying American to equal treatment. Period. Unless you are willing to have me pay less taxes because I cannot fully participate as US citizen, then frankly it is not fair.

Also, while I would have called myself a religious person in the past, I have steered clear of this definition largely because of the dogmatic faiths meddling in personal lives of others. I am not alone, while Americans may be overall more religious than their European counterparts, this demographic fact is changing largely caused by the inflexibility of these faiths and their willingness to dominate the rest of us.

Nick,

That wasn't my intention. In fact, after reading over what I wrote again, I realize that I should've just left out the word judgmental. T.A., I apologize for that.

Again, I'm advocating for the state to rid itself of governing marriage; therefore, abolishing the need to have laws regarding the institution in the first place (although I realize this may never happen due to the enormous legal ramifications of having children, health issues, estates, etc). While I don't agree with gay marriage, I'm not going to fight against it or try to create some law to ban it.

I think Christians spend far too much time worrying about what the rest of the world is doing . It's not our job to be the moral compass for everyone.

Matthew 7:1-5

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

There are parts of T.A.'s post that I agree wholeheartedly with, like the last paragraph:

Measure 36 and Prop 8 are acts of religious tyranny, and yet they open the door for religion to be tyrannized by non-believing citizens and their government. If churches wish to maintain the full sanctity of their beliefs and practices, they need to relinquish the human lust for power. History has many examples of persons of faith finding ways to integrate their beliefs into the legal structure of their nation without violating anyone's rights: the civil rights movement, after all, was led by Christian ministers among others. Believers can bring their faith into the public forum, but if they attempt to have those beliefs codified into law at the expense of non-believers, they have to recognize their are no longer practicing their faith: They are giving to Caesar what belongs to God.

However The question is not what individual family is “better” than another… rather the question is…What impact does same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage as a whole.

There is not a single shred of credible evidence that same-sex marriage has any negative impact whatsoever on the "culture of marriage as a whole". Have divorces skyrocketed in MA? No. Has the rate of unwed mothers gone up? No.

In any case, we're talking about legal rights here, not "culture". The wording of Prop 8 was not about "culture", it was about stripping real families of real, existing rights. There's no getting around that.

You seem to want to set up a nice catch-22 trap: We don't have enough evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage, therefore we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage. Therefore, no such evidence can accumulate, and therefore we never have to allow it. QED.

Nick,

I think you missed my point completely, which was probably my fault. I think that we need to embrace a civic faith that allows for the old axiom about swinging ones fist. As long as you don't hit someone in the nose, swing away, for the most part. I am not in any way in opposition to Mr. Barnhart here, I like how he is building an argument that satisfies all aspects of our constitution. I was simply looking at the issue and developing a kind of heuristic for argumentation, expanding on the concepts within his piece. Please take another look.

I think we need to not be outflanked by some in the religious sphere when they make claims about the US being built on Christian values. Sure the Constitution is a positivist document that draws on Christian philosophy but so did Nietzsche. My thought was how do we look at our secular faith, the Mythical underpinnings of America, to create a solid claim for our perspective that matches the strength presented by the fundamentalists and their allies in the minds of those who would vote for things like Prop 8, against gay marriage. Can we peel off Christians to our perspective by appealing to their American-ness without attacking their faith, kind of like Mr. Barnhart is doing here.

As for incrementalism vs. agitation. Agitation provides the foundation for incremental change. The people who argue for slow and steady change would see none if the issue wasn't forced by agitators like the Multnomah County Commissioner. It shows the society that change is coming and that they better get ready.

But the result of Linn's actions, IMO, is M36.

No.

It was the result of a coordinated campaign by the Catholic Church (led by the Archdiocese of Portland, which donated the most money), the Albina Ministerial Alliance, and other Protestant and Mormon churches in and out of state.

Mormon US Senator Gordon Smith also contributed his significant "moderate" image and quotes to literature promoting the measure.

This, combined with our Catholic Attorney General's spineless failure to respond to efforts to cut gays and lesbians off from a basic constitutional right (in a document he was charged with defending), and a pathetically lukewarm response from Catholic Governor Ted Kulongoski, led to my family's current legal devaluation.

A lack of leadership, and some very nasty and successful efforts by religious bigots led to the passage of Measure 36...

I can't tell you how many people - particularly younger people, who know my family and know we're human, just like everyone else, have decided to quit donating to and attending services at Catholic, Protestant and Mormon churches.

That's the root cause of our inequality. And it's definitely time to weed.

Bob R.

"You seem to want to set up a nice catch-22 trap: We don't have enough evidence about the impact of same-sex marriage, therefore we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage. Therefore, no such evidence can accumulate, and therefore we never have to allow it. QED."

This is not my intention...

I do however find it intuitively true & philosophically grounded that same-sex "marriage" will undermine marriage as a whole.

I would look to those States in years to come, but it is the nature of the change that the resultant deterioration will take time to settle in.

The better evidence is from European societies that have had same-sex “marriage” for more than 10 years.

80% of first born children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock

DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM

“The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”

Signed, Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam

Nick

I think you meant a different Jason. My bad.

"I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama. The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars. Let’s pray for an end to this.

I will compare my leftie credentials against any of you. But how about we leave specific religions out of this? I have voted, donated, phone banked, doorbelled, and begged for Democratic candidates, women's reproductive rights, same sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, single payer health coverage, environmental justice, and just about anything else you can think of. But if you back me into a corner and make me choose between my Catholic faith and my left wing political causes, I choose the Church and will say FU to the rest of you. But why are you doing this? What do you expect to gain?

Much or all of those same dynamics were in play on the Death With Dignity Measure and we passed it..twice. (Although I'm not completely sure that Gordon Smith appeared in lit or advertising during the actual initiative/measure process)

Didn't Death with Dignity pass by only a few percentage points? At least the first time? So perhaps Gordon Smith could have pushed it off the cliff..?(!)

But I don't deny that decades of religious efforts to selectively demonize me and my family have been much more successful than religious efforts to deny ALL Oregonians access to more choices when terminally ill.

I think many Oregonians understood the potential loss of control over their own lives if that measure had failed; Measure 36, in contrast, probably seemed, to many, to primarily affect someone else.

And gays and lesbians? Not even fully human, according to my Archbishop.

I will compare my leftie credentials against any of you. But how about we leave specific religions out of this?

No way.

If my church had poured hundreds of thousands of parishioner dollars into successful political efforts to prevent Black women from voting, or Pakistani-Americans from marrying Filipino-Americans, I'd leave it. In an instant.

I think you, as a Catholic, need to recognize and acknowledge your role in my family's current legal inequality, and the legal inequality suffered by your gay and lesbian family and friends.

I hope it feels lousy. It should. And if you don't like it, do something. Say something. Speak out against prejudice in your church. Quit donating.

Once again:

Number one financial supporter of Measure 36: the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland.

But why are you doing this? What do you expect to gain?

Younger people get it. Someday you'll be the old grandpa who occasionally still says racist things years after the Civil Rights Act was finally passed.

Now we really know where Fritz is coming from... not only does he not want gay people and their families to have equal rights, he cites bogus, frequently debunked "statistics" as the basis for defending his prejudice.

When people start defending their position with only assertions that it is "intuitively true" and "philosophically grounded" and the only "evidence" they provide is ginned-up statistics, it is fair to apply the BIGOT label. I find it "intuitively true" and "philosophically grounded" that individuals acting like Fritz are inherently bigoted.

Back to one of Fritz's earlier ignorance-revealing questions:

But when did the left start caring about "marriage" in any form other than a vehicle for "inclusion" for gays???

The left "started" caring about marriage a long time ago. Recent 20th-century examples include the fight to recognize the rights of mixed-race couples and mixed-faith couples is various states.

Aren't "scare quotes" like "inclusion" a "wonderful" thing? Here's a "tip" for you: If "something" is "actually" the case, there is "no need" to put "scare quotes" around it. Inclusion is inclusion, not "inclusion".

From the article that TorridJoe referenced, which addresses Fritz's "statistics":

No matter how you slice the demographic data, rates of nonmarital births and cohabitation do not increase as a result of the passage of laws that give same-sex partners the right to registered partnership. To put it simply: Giving gay couples rights does not inexplicably cause heterosexuals to flee marriage [...]

Yes I have read that piece from Slate before.

"does not inexplicably"

Well...yes, this is social science so you won’t find a lot of “inexplicably”...being thrown around.

Good faith is an important thing.

Being (classically) liberal is an important thing.

Being fair minded and open minded is an important thing.

When it is crucial to your legal as well as political case to call people bigots ....social scientic literature on the health of marriage in Europe (and the much greater amount) of literature on child well being and intact natural married families is going to appear "inexplicably" as bigotry

http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/

Fitz writes: When it is crucial to your legal as well as political case to call people bigots

I only call bigots bigots, and it isn't crucial, except that truth-telling and revealing the bias of oppressors is a good thing.

When it is crucial to portray the very lives and relationships of your political opponents as threats to marriage and children, it is bigotry.

All persons of every ethnicity, gender and sexual predilection are created equal. The laws should apply equally to all. Simple, but oh so complicated when we view the issue from a moral/religious perspective. One solution removes "marriage" as a legal term of art and substitutes "civil union" alone to signify legal rights attendant to the legal partnership between such "persons". Leave "Marriage" to one's religious whims and rebuild the wall between church and state. Please people, quit mucking up our Constitution. It was never meant to be definitional but instead aspirational. To openly discriminate against one's sexual preference by defining "Marriage" as to exclude a segment of our populace has no place in the constitution. Simply, leave it out altogether and limit the statute to "civil unions" only. That way everyone who finds love in another may be treated equally under the law.

With all this talk of religion and marriage, let us not forget that the actual biblical historical record in regards to marriage is rife with polygamy, incest, murder (King David killed to get Bathsheba and was later rewarded for it in the biblical canon) and a host of other non-"traditional" examples of the union of a man and a woman. Although Moses states in his recollection of creation that the man was to leave his father and mother and take the woman so that the two could become one, Moses himself intimately joined with his slave girl so that he could father a son, because Sarah was not able to conceive.

The whole concept of "traditional marriage" is a joke and is completely unfounded if those who'd whack us over the head with their bibles would actually unzip them and read them.

Gotta disagree that the legislature should refer a repeal of M36 to the voters.

The repeal should be by citizens initiative. If it went on the ballot in 2010, there's a good chance that repeal would be passed. The vote to ban gay marriage was 57%-43% in 2004. In California, it was 52-48 this year. Given the rate at which public opinion is changing on this issue, and the demographic shifts that drive a lot of the change (Greatest Generation and Silent Generation dying out; Millennials registering to vote) I can see it somewhere around 50-50 by 2010 or 2012. It's a winnable fight.

But it needs to originate from the grass roots, not the legislature.

Douglas, for the Leg to refer a repeal wil require a lot of support from the roots. not to mention the Oregon Leg is pretty representative of the people who elect them; it's not a country club. ours reps live in the community and know the voters.

not to mention, almost anything that comes via the initiative process is a fubar. we'll get the repeal, but we need the Leg to develop the permanent structures of civil marriage.

I think there's some bigger issues that are running through the discussion. The most ironic is that if you grant that decoupling reproduction from cohabitation will lead to traditional families dwindling, why are you fighting the gay community? Seems they take it seriously, unlike all those apostate couples that are cited. The site from Dutch sources shows why they're cool. That's their version of right wing propaganda, a position paper by the Christian Democrats. I could live with that being the far right.

I think that Jason, though has hit the nail on the head of a very deep tumor in the American psyche. He mentions the need to fashion a common mythology, a way of thinking about ourselves and what we are trying to do. We've had that in saturation, for 80 years, from Hollywood. I'm serious, from a purely clinical point of view I would maintain to my last dime I had to bet that you can demonstrate that the #1 cause of failed marriages, used to be US but now worldwide, is Hollywood's representation of relationships. People go around with all kinds of ridiculous expectations and scripts for dealing with frustration that are not viable in the least. Recognizing same sex unions will never do anywhere near the damage to marriage that Hollywood does.

You want to know why US troops aren't regarded today like George Washington was in France, etc? Washington had a vision in his head from his boyhood reading of Cininnatus, the citizen soldier farmer that saved the Republic, then went back to farming. Our troops have images of Rambo, and we get Abu Graib.

The point about the revolution in the Church is valid. I would urge Catholics to take up the argument I made to challenge the Diocese. It is disappointing that with so many Jesuits around there's no spine! Then, Franciscans are always disappointed by Jesuits. I apologize to evangelicals like Jenni, which to be realistic have to be pretty rare. I guess I would have more respect for the evangelical position if I ever saw it articulated in a way that started with evangelical poverty, though I'll gladly take what's on display.

I guess the other point would be the question about how many would care if benefits weren't involved. The real mismatch could be that the idea of spousal benefits applied in a context where a partner was voluntarily sacrificing their earnings potential and had to be compensated if the bread winner became unable to work. How valid is that assumption in a non-traditional relationship? I'd like to think it could no longer be true in a traditional relationship, so maybe the whole benefit scheme needs a radical rethinking, and then maybe they'll be less contention for being recognized by it.

"Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others believe homosexuality is wrong. I refuse to engage them in that argument. Many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others once believed (and too many still do) that persons of other faiths and ethnicities are inferior, worthy of enslavement or even death."

Religion don´t seem to be able to decide. On the one hand they predict love and tolerance on the other hand that homosexuality is bad and so on. Religions will stay for a mysterious thing.

You're absolutely right. Religion is really a misterious thing. We should love and respect each other but religions do not allow to love and respect everybody...

Sorry, but for my opinion religion is simply a lie made from opportunists who make their profit with the people believing in it. :-(

One wonders how many of those who trampled the employee on black friday consider themselves devout christians dedicated to preserving life at all costs? (unless of course the i-pods are half price)

This is an attempt to fix someone's open italics/emphasis tags. Did it work?

One more try. That should do it.

Marriage is a secular contract. This should not be a difficult concept to follow.

I have long said government should get out of the marriage business, leaving it to the church - simply for separation of church and state reasons. Fortunately that battle has been recently revived, and eventually we'll wize up and get it done.

Civil unions will cover kids, property, and those sorts of things, leaving it to the church to cover those non-governmental concerns.

Posted by: carla axtman | Dec 3, 2008 9:02:32 AM

Not to pick nits, but this was Abraham, not Moses.

Which is covered as well in the Quran. One of those minor reality points that gets overlooked, that every militant Islamist named Ibraim or Yusef is named after a Jew-boy, that the holy men of their holy book are Jews. In the good old days, devout Muslims were only against a Jewish state. How could they be against Jews? I don't know what the actual toll will be on the West, but militant Islam in the 20th century has brought down their faith pretty thoroughly.

Our gobbling it up though is all about us and not them, of course.

The argument that denial of marriage to gays denies them equal protection does not hold water. Historically, concern about discriminatory application of laws to individuals has ALWAYS been based on race, ethnicity, national origin or religious beliefs; except for religious belief--these are unalterable and easily identifiable outward physical characteristics. Being gay is a behavior that is not consitutionally protected like freedom of religion. Our nation was established to grant freedoms, religion being a primary one, not a freedom to be enjoy state sanctioned gay marriage. It is not a denial of equal protection to apply different tax law to gay couples any more than it is to apply different driver license laws to 14 year olds or drunk drivers. Society makes applications of laws apply to classes of folks differently for all sorts of policy reasons. Insuring that gays receive police, fire and miltary protection as well as freedom from discrimination in housing, employment and college applications is full equal protection under the laws that gays already entirely enjoy. I don't qualify for medicaid (not disabled); I don't get social security (too young) nor do I get VA housing loans (didn't serve in the military). Being unable to get a few of the same tax treatment, hospital courtesies or life insurance benefits of married couples means gays simply don't qualify--it is not the kind of discrimination that rises to the level of constitutional concern.

Being gay is a behavior

Nonsense. This phony predicate blows your entire argument out of the water.

One does not have to engage in any kind of behavior whatsoever to be gay. "Sexual orientation" is just that -- an orientation, not an activity. This has been well understood in sociological and biological terms for decades. A straight man who is attracted to women but is still a virgin is nonetheless heterosexual. This is not complicated.

Our nation was established to grant freedoms

Our nation was established to recognize rights. A subtle but important difference.

Insuring that gays receive [...] freedom from discrimination in housing, employment and college applications is full equal protection under the laws that gays already entirely enjoy.

Not everywhere, not in every locality, not by a long shot.

I don't qualify for medicaid (not disabled); I don't get social security (too young) nor do I get VA housing loans (didn't serve in the military).

All of those things are available to you should you be in the common life situation which warrants those benefits.

You could become disabled at any moment. You're not likely to change your sexual orientation at any moment, however. Medicaid is there for you should you face trouble.

Social security is there for you should you reach retirement age. If not, there are other social security benefits available to you and your family for other circumstances, which are not available to same-sex couples.

VA housing is available to you should you choose to serve. Ironically, gay people must serve in silence, while straight people can "tell" about their sexuality, even when not "asked", all they want.

All you've done is highlight areas of discrimination against gay people and same-sex couples.

it is not the kind of discrimination that rises to the level of constitutional concern.

Spoken like a true bigot who is A) completely oblivious to the current state of hate law and B) completely callous about the hardships faced by gay people and same-sex couples and their families.

Your arguments make no logical sense, and beyond revealing your profound ignorance, show the lengths of rhetorical effort you are willing to go through to deny others the recognition of their human rights.

I made a lovely typo/slip when I wrote "current state of hate law" when I meant to write "current state of THE law"... but you know what? It kind of fits! :-)

Jason E.,

You're right, polygamy is rife within the Bible. Does it make it right? Did God condone it? Absolutely not! More in-depth study of biblical history would show you that.

King David was punished for his adulterous-murderous affair, lost his illegitimate child at birth, and had two of his older sons turn against him. The rest of his life was no walk-in-the-park, as God allowed other nations to rise up against Israel for David's sins.

As for Moses, same thing. He didn't go without retribution for his ways. His relationship with his wife was forever tainted; his son, Ishmael, from the slave girl, ended up seeding a nation that constantly fought and attacked Israel; and Moses was never allowed to enter the Promised Land.

I don't expect you to understand it or believe it, but the story of David is one that tells about God's justice, grace and mercy. Despite David's contempt for God and basic moral standards, he called him "a man after his own heart." That story, in part, is supposed to show us that despite our flaws, and ugly choices in life, God is always there to love us and forgive us. To say that David and Moses were blessed and suffered no retribution or punishment for their actions is incorrect. The Bible also talks about how the sins of the fathers affects the third and fourth generations. There's a ripple affect to sin.

There's a reason the Bible is full of murder, sexual deviancy, lies, theft, greed, lust, abuse of power, hypocrisy, etc. It's to show us that there are consequences for our actions, and that even those who profess to be believers are no more perfect or righteous than anyone else. Instead, believers should look to God's ways which provide a more healthy and selfless way of living. As Jesus said, "I came to serve, not be served." That should be the heart of all Christians. Unfortunately, we're often the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. I don't deny it.

I could care less if people don't believe in God or the Bible, and think it's all a crock. However, I would respectfully ask that before using scripture or biblical stories to make a point - and to chastise the Christian faith - you at least have some basic understanding of historical and biblical facts.

I could care less if people don't believe in God or the Bible

And it doesn't bother me one whit that many people do believe this stuff.

What bothers me quite a lot is that people use the Bible as a justification for pushing religious proscriptions into secular law which have no rational basis whatsoever.

Jason, (not Jason E - that's me)

Nice try on using a broad biblical brush. You have no idea what my theological credentials are, therefore you have no business questioning them. Besides, when there are SO MANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the bible - and accompanying wars launched against countries, races and cultures in its name - who the hell can keep up? Pick ten, you'll always get a different answer. Additionally, the entire Old Testament is, if anything, a story of a vengeful, demanding god who's pretty little paradise was ruined by these little things he created.

Much like the bible-thumpers of today who with one face go on and on about how personal and private their beliefs are, then with the other demand (gee, much like their own god) that people do and say exactly what they want or else...

The Oregonian has a story last weekend about a local Catholic woman who decided to put up a billboard here in Portland advocating her belief in the pregnant virgin Mary because she didn't feel that the people in her community believed the same way she did. It's in the Metro section from last Sunday, if you want to take a look at it.

It is that type of behavior that we have to put a stop to. When the "fundamentalists" and simple minded see something that they don't understand, they become afraid and they try to force all of us into their cave so THEY feel safer. Instead of coming out into modern-day, they'd take all of us back to the religious stone age. Sound good to you?

...advocating her belief in the pregnant virgin Mary...

How's that different than the Church using an indigenous looking Virgin Mary for Nuestra Senora del Guadalupe? It's that she doesn't know her place, right? Study John XXIII to learn that class-less policies aren't death to the Church!

How's that different than the Church using an indigenous looking Virgin Mary for Nuestra Senora del Guadalupe?

The point is that arguments over varying interpretations of your favorite holy book should be in the domain of churches, church members, and other interested parties. That's all just lovely and highly entertaining I'm sure.

But using such holy books to remove the rights from real people and real families, by force of law, possibly at the point of a gun, is the real abomination.

I don't care what color skin you want to portray on Mary, or whether she was a virgin, was ever pregnant, or even existed at all. That's your business. Keep it your business and stop messing with my family.

When do we all get to vote on your marriage, by the way?

I don't care what color skin you want to portray on Mary, or whether she was a virgin, was ever pregnant, or even existed at all. That's your business. Keep it your business and stop messing with my family.

I'm confused. I assumed you are both Catholics. She's expressing her religious beliefs just like you are. Rome messes with her family every day in every way.

My point is there is a double standard. Implementing Rome's vision is "practice of religion" but having one's own experience of that faith is some kind of liberation theology heresy. It really does take a lot of cheek to have no prob. with Rome telling her that she has to submit to her drunken husband getting her knocked up for the 4th time in as many years but that her projecting her pain onto a beloved relgious icon is screwing with your family. That really torques me.

You know, in the whole debate, the middle has been set too far to the right. You are aware that there are countries that control the birthrate? Pick your enemies better. I would love to have those kind of regulations. People like me want to mess with your family sovereignty, not her. You don't know what time it is. You're asking her to justify her behavior, as if your weren't questioned. It hasn't been, but those times will soon be over. Have to be. We cannot continue to base our concept of home sovereignty on a behavioral difference between Bonobos and Chimps that arose during one particularly bad drought!

Zarathustra, I'm not sure anyone can follow what you write at this point.

Neither Jason E. nor me are Catholic. Never have been, never said anything of the kind.

I don't really give a sh*t about intra-church Catholic / name-your-sect squabbles.

What I am demanding is the entirely centrist and non-radical position of this: Keep your church policy, via the force of Government, out of my family relationships.

In secular terms, there is absolutely not one rational basis to keep same-sex couples from marriage. Not one. The only justifications which have ever come up (and always without any shred of real-world proof), are touchy-feely religious-based arguments.

If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. If your church hates gays, don't perform gay weddings. I don't care. No amount of incoherent ranting on your part changes the fact that anti-gay political activists, funded primarily by religious interlopers from a relatively few sects, EXPLICITLY TOOK EXISTING RIGHTS AWAY from same-sex couples.

Keep it in your church, be a bigot on Sunday, I don't care. But keep it out of the f*cking STATE CONSTITUTION.

It's that simple.

Thinking you were defending Rome was the only sense I could make of The Oregonian has a story last weekend about a local Catholic woman who decided to put up a billboard here in Portland advocating her belief in the pregnant virgin Mary because she didn't feel that the people in her community believed the same way she did. It's in the Metro section from last Sunday, if you want to take a look at it.

It is that type of behavior that we have to put a stop to. When the "fundamentalists" and simple minded see something that they don't understand, they become afraid and they try to force all of us into their cave so THEY feel safer. Instead of coming out into modern-day, they'd take all of us back to the religious stone age. Sound good to you?

For the record, I am an atheist that detests the Catholic Church.

Zarathustra, I'm not sure anyone can follow what you write at this point.

Agreed. This is a complete waste. Nolite dare sanctum canibus (sed feli OK est); neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos. Stomp, stomp. I Should have paid less attention to fact that the topic post is about a Vatican position paper.

Zarathustra -

<h2>Thanks for your reply. The point of the quoted text about the pregnant virgin billboard (originally posted by Jason E., not me) had nothing to do with "defending Rome". The point was to show there is no universal Christian opinion on anything in the Bible... once this kind of stuff (like discrimination against same-gender partners and their families) makes it into the secular governmental realm, sectarian skirmishes become public policy and we ALL lose when this happens.</h2>